1) Evolution assumes that only it is right concerning the origin of the world. If evolution is only about the the origin of the species then why on earth is there a Big Bang Theory concerning the origin of the universe -- from nothing? Is that not making a hypothesis (because evolution does not even begin to fit the description of a theory) "without natural evidence" that it ever occurred and without ever being able to duplicate it?

2) What is all this "entitlement" jargon, again? At worst it's a misuse of the word or at best a misunderstanding of an opposing opinion. As to proof of existence, it's pretty obvious AND I've already explained before at length. To restate my position simply: an orderly system indicates that an intelligent being brought about said order. The existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. Creation itself is the proof! It's like living in a house with all of the most modern amenities, etc. and asking for proof of the existence of the architect! For pity's sake! Logic on this level doesn't require a rocket scientist.

3) I've noted before that I'm not a scientist; I'm a researcher (among many other things). If you have a problem with my example and back up evidence then sue whoever posted it in the first place! I heard about this example from someone else. Also, I made it very clear that I understood that the example was not perfect.

4) An attempt to intentionally deceive would be counter-productive for me in this situation would it not? Do you think me unethical AND stupid? Cool off and think rationally, and while you're at it re-read the quote I posted and re-check it's source. I don't know where you go off questioning the nature of my motives! If I misunderstood the quote and it's implications then I sincerely apologize, but DO NOT accuse me of bold-faced lying or deception.

I've made it very clear that science is not my strongest area, but that doesn't mean I can't research or have an opinion. If that were the case then you would not be able to make your snide remarks about God and religion.

I'm not declaring a truce or waving a white flag, but do you think it would be possible for us to start acting like adults? Let's take the anger down a few notches, and raise the level of respect by a lot. We're both intelligent human beings capable of rational thought and conversation (at least I consider you to be intelligent; I don't know what you think about me). The overall attitude in this discussion is not comendable of either one of us. There are rules of engagement in war and understood rules even in heated conversations like these.

So what has the Big Bang theory got to do with you attacking evolution theory for the wrong reason? Are you lost?

And before humans were building and living in houses, they were living in caves. Now does that fact suggest the existence of a "cave-maker"? Therefore no actual God, no working creationism, when creationism itself was man-made.

Form a diffusion of personal responsibility that leads to blind obedience to authority, you're subjecting yourself to two of the seven social processes that grease the slippery slop of evil.

You don't know science, and there you were running your mouth like you know jack. Whereas I OTOH only spoke the honest truth about science, so I don't see any reason for me to stop. When it's you who keeps contradicting herself with her lies, not opinions.

Therefore don't you dare trying to lecture me, when you're the one who lacks composure, eloquence, and dignity.

This is precisely why I didn't want to start talking to you in the first place -- the mud slinging foolishness. So regardless of any further intelligent conversation from you, after this I will not waste my time.

I don't appreciate the God-complex that comes across when speaking with you -- as though only you could possibly be right. You make all these grandiose statements against what you perceive as "negativity" not realizing that your criticism is the worst kind of negativity because it is not constructive. Positive and negative are integral parts of life -- one cannot exist without the reality of the other. There is a "negativity" that is constructive and a "positiveness" that is more properly called "enabling." A stand can be good when taken on negative grounds, yet it is also possible for a stand to be bad if taken on positive grounds.

You have some really odd ideas about entitlement and feel that people are "entitled" to consider only your definition of the word. At the same time you seem to be some species of anarchist or "individualist," yet your words often puzzle me with their inconsistency. For someone who appears to praise individualism you do not accept the opinion of another individual unless it is along the same lines as your own -- isn't that just creating a new kind of collectivism? It is as though you think that your set of values should be applicable to everyone. Where is the individualists idea of freedom in that equation?

I am not a collectivist, but I do believe that authority is a necessary organization of power, knowledge and responsibility that many individuals of their own free will have agreed to. I do not blindly obey authority. I just have many good reasons to obey and THEN question it. Example: I have a friend who is very, very tall. When we are in a press of people and he suddenly tells me not to go in a certain direction, I don't go in that direction. I cease movement and then I ask him "why." At which point he explains if there is an obstacle ahead, etc. It is a matter of trust, not blind obedience. Authority is a tall person or a person who has been put on stilts. That person has a better view (more knowledge), a greater reach (more power), and the burden of advising others of what he sees (more responsibility). I understand all of these things about authority; therefore, I trust it. Does that mean that I do not question it? Of course not. However, I take it's advice and then question its motives and make decisions about placing further "trust" in it according to the presentable facts. Does that sound like blind obedience to you? It seems like a perfectly logical course of action to me and billions of others on this earth.

The Big Bang Theory IS evolution -- no further hypothesis concerning origins can stand without its foundation. What is the wrong reason that I am attacking evolution? Yes, I'm lost because I don't know where that particular accusation of yours came from.

You totally do not get (or refuse to understand) the entire house analogy. The earth is a precisely organized house with its many intricately interconnected ecosystems; it is not a barren, naturally ocurring cave. There are patterns, to use a musical explanation -- variations on themes (such as the variety of animals with five digits on each paw) that do not line up with the idea of random chance and spontaneous generation. The idea of creationism is man-made, but then so are all ideas. However the idea of creationism is based on the observation of order in the environment. The act of creation cannot be observed today any more than the act of evolution can be observed because the act of creation is done; however, we can still see the "tool marks," the beauty of the design itself, its intricate perfection.

I never presumed to be a scientist. Your accusations of lying and deception seem based on this premise, but ironically I have repeatedly stated that I am not a scientist. My attempt has repeatedly been avoiding misleading anyone who reads this forum concerning my degree of expertise. Either you are not reading everything I write and are therefore ignorant, or you are willfully disregarding my statements in order to be hateful and slanderous.

Your final statement is based on the assumption that you know or understand me which you definitely do not. That final statement is made against any person who does not agree with you; therefore, I do not take offence. Raging hostility merely shows your own lack of the three characteristics that you accuse me of lacking.

Really, this conversation has reached the height of ridiculous. We are not children who come to blows over a difference of opinion.

Insofar, I counted at least nine false claims without facts from your reply about only my person, and they are:
1) "your criticism is the worst kind of negativity because it is not constructive."
2) "people are "entitled" to consider only your definition of the word."
3) "your words often puzzle me with their inconsistency."
4) "you do not accept the opinion of another individual unless it is along the same lines as your own"
5) "You totally do not get (or refuse to understand) the entire house analogy."
6) "Your accusations of lying and deception seem based on this premise, but ironically I have repeatedly stated that I am not a scientist."
7) "Your final statement is based on the assumption that you know or understand me which you definitely do not."
8) "Raging hostility merely shows your own lack of the three characteristics"
9) "We are not children who come to blows over a difference of opinion."

Because if you claimed that my words are often puzzled and inconsistent, then how the heck we can be having this conversation? So from that false claim, AKA lie, you continued to frame me in all sorts of negative images that's already based on you lying about you not understand me. In scientific "research", both researchers and scientists call that "data contamination" due to "results being inconsistent with the facts".

Now that "I" got "your" mud throwing behind "me", it's time for me to work on the rest of your lies. Which BTW that rhetoric is the proper application of individualism; identifying individual thoughts and feelings based on the individual persons originated from.

The positivity in science means only confirm with the experiences by using all available senses, therefore even when the experiences themselves "feels" bad, that feeling itself will also be accounted for as just another experience. In other words, there's no "negative" experiences in the field of science, when even bad ideas can be made into better ones by learning from it.

As for the question that is the nature of freedom itself, I'll let Professor Micheal Sandel of Harvard Law School to lecture you instead of me. Since you prefer to listen and then obey to those who are in high places, without you questioning what they say first.

You claimed that creation is done, well that's not how nature defines herself. When the process is still ongoing because the cycle of the universe itself isn't complete. Therefore while both the universe and life themselves are still changing, without neither of the processes themselves reached full completion, nobody had done creating anything.

Therefore thanks to your lack of expertise, which resulted with you came up with a lot of bad ideas. I managed to "enable" them into better ones with the help from scientific methods. Thanks!

"I am freedom in its purest form, for my intellect runs wild and free."

School could do to be divided. Separate the religious from the non-religious. Let people go about their business without being mixed up to avoid conflicts. If people from either worlds encountered each other, law enforcement would disperse them.

I am highly amused by how many people misunderstand Evolution, and by Evolution I mean the backbone of all modern biology.

Challenging the theory of Evolution to explain the origin of everything is absurd because:

1. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life. Evolution at its most simple form is changes in allele frequencies in a given population over time. If you want to study the origins of life on Earth, you'll need to brush up on chemical Abiogenesis.

2. The theory of Evolution is a biological theory and was never meant to explain the origin of universe...that's why we have Cosmology and Particle Physics.
A universe that has a total energy of zero and is geometrically flat can actually begin from nothing, and surprise, surprise, that appears to be the universe we live in. If you don't understand the concepts of total energy zero, the geometry of the universe, and the energy level of nothing (such as the energy of nothing that contributes most of the mass of the Proton), I suggest actually learning a bit about physics. And don't say this stuff is unproven fluff either; As Lawrence Krauss put it, "Empty space is vital to science and these calculations are vital to understanding not just Protons, but Electrons and atoms and produce the best comparisons between theory and experiment in all of science....to 10 decimal places in Quantum Electrodynamics, we can get the right answer."

All the pages upon pages of arguing here is rather silly....I've got an idea for those that are confused about it....Go ask an actual Evolutionary Biologist! It doesn't do you or anyone else any good to have misconceptions.

I guess the best that I can say about the creationism vs Evolution in schools debate is this:

If the creationists can come up with a theory that is empirical, falsifiable, and actually plays by the rules of Science, then sure... Go ahead and teach it. The problem is though, they'll never come up with such a theory because science isn't their goal in the first place. People like Ken Ham and the Discovery Institute that push Creationism don't want to educate, they want to indoctrinate. It's pretty obvious.

The theory of Evolution on the other hand is empirical, falsifiable, and does play by the proper rules of science, not to mention it has had 150 years and counting of support, including from modern genetics research that would have delighted Darwin.
If you're not sure how to falsify Evolution, here's a tip: Find any kind of gross violation of Phylogenetics.

why has the revival of this thread gone off into attacking thoeries?
The OP had the right idea 2 yrs ago, in a science class just teach science. creationism isnt science. therefore shouldnt be taught at school unless your in a theology class. problem solved.

and whats the big deal ne way? its not like the school is forcing u to beleive anything they teach or say. Just put it on the test and move on. evolution will not play a huge role in your life, hell, its practically non existent in the real world. peace over war

'Next time you get sick! Think about what you just said in red. The fact is evolution is the corner stone to all modern medicine, without are understanding of evolution most of the cures we have today would never have been created.' Evolution plays a big role in are everyday lives... believe it or not.
"Logic over superstition!"

Bacteria and viruses don't "evolve." We are studying them now in genetics. The fact is that viruses mutate, not because they "evolve" but because of mistakes the polymerase makes. Also, bacteria don't evolve, they acquire extracellular DNA called plasmids that code for resistance, essentially it's like natural selection. Bacteria resistant to antibiotic don't die, and thus populate in place of the dead ones.

LOL.. Digs Digs Digs Mutating is evolution. Viruses that are killed do not multiply , and so those viruses that mutate into something not affected by what is killing off the other viruses will multiply, and so on and so fourth.. after words repeat the hole process over again.. Mutation is one of three process that evolution uses.

(quoting a scientist.. I forget his name... "without evolution there is no life." Or "Evolution is needed for life to exist.")

Mutating is mutating, there is no speciation. Technically viruses aren't living things anyway. They don't mutate to adapt, they mutate because of chaotic error. Mutation is 99.99% detrimental, in fact in school I am doing a project with mutant drosophila and how these mutations affect them.

Regardless of the fact that "speciation" isn't even a word, when mutation is nature's way of experimenting genetic variants in rapid successions on a specie. The ones that can improve the specie's own efficiency at survival get to pass down through out generations via natural selection.

However, this also means that due to a relatively slow rate of mutation within the human specie, I personally think that the human genetic diseases caused by mutations, was nature's way of getting rid of unnecessary and wasteful genetic information.

Speciation is a word. Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Nature is not a sentient thing that can make choices, it is a natural process with created order to it. If anything, mutations are natures mistakes that it tries to avoid at all costs. Cells have many checkpoints during devision and many proteins and genes that specifically work to fix DNA breaks/mutations and prevent offspring from having a mutant chromosome. Now, out of 3 billion DNA base pairs sometimes a mutation is passed on, but it is detrimental to the organism and that gene usually and eventually gets erased from the gene pool via natural selection. Please explain how human genetic diseases are a removal of "unnecessary" genetic information. I have been studying genetic diseases in university, and the majority of them are due to mutations of an existing gene, the disease is caused because that protein the gene codes for is not working correctly/abnormally. The genetic information is still there, it's just that the information is "corrupted."

You can play the "roots" game if u like, but quite frankly me and everyone else often associates modern medicine with modern medicine. Most people dont go to the doctor and discuss evolution when they are sick, and the doctors dont explain how the medicine will work in relation to evolution.And believing or understanding evolution will not affect how the medicine will work on the body.Wishing evolution will disappear wont change modern medicine one bit, ect.

Evolution has its place in the science fields that study it, but in the real world, its non existent.You can live a healthy normal life with no knowledge of evolution.Thats why society hires doctors, to do the thinking for them, so they dont have to. I mean just look around your society- do u see anybody advertising evolution? preaching/teaching about it outside or inside of school? Do u have institutions dedicated and businesses run by a group of evolutionists believers? Is your government run by the idea? Do your children talk about it constantly? was it ever a fad? does it have its own label?

there is no pun here intended, but its not like evolution is some type of religion that everyone must believe in to be saved . Practicality should be the most important role of anybodys life. Use whats useful and what works-discard what doesnt.

Edit- heres a video that solidifies my point.http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/0/KnJX68ELbAY peace over war

this is exactly what im talking about . This goes for all 3 of you, there r about 2-3 threads already discussiong theories of evolution . Though its entertaining to watch the 3 of you attempt to make each other see the light, this simply wasnt the point of this thread. the point of this thread was to actually see if the stuff u r talking should be taught to children in place/with/instead of creationism.

That, quite frankly is a much better arguement and its practicle.Not in the sense that basic knowlege of evolution will change anything for the kid or society, but it influences what a child can learn, or rather, should learn.

What? this is what we debated in my class and it turned out great, none of it turned into a debate about evolution, because none it of mattered. It either is or isnt, but what a child can learn either will or not be. do any of you see my light? peace over war